> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 20 October 2007 02:30
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: sip
> Subject: RE: [Sip] INFO
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> >
> > For somebody that doesn't support 3265, and doesn't want 
> to, but that
> > does want to support these new packages within an INVITE, 
> this is all
> > new implementation in any case. Sure, it would require 
> supporting the
> > NOTIFY *method*, as it is used in this new usage. But the 
> hard work is
> > in supporting the packages, not the method. And that part 
> is the same
> > either way.
> >
> > >> - I would expect that any event packages defined in the 
> future that
> > >>    could meaningfully be used in this way would be 
> designed from the
> > >>    ground up to support both styles.
> > >
> > > True of both cases, I presume.
> >
> > So you are assuming that we would define packages that use a common
> > encoding and semantics for messages, but that convey them 
> in NOTIFY for
> > subscriptions and in INFO for invite-dialog usage?
> >
> > That is certainly possible. It just seems unappealing to me.
> 
> Turning the tables on you: what does the method name matter?  :)
> For one thing, it's explicit - INFO would be for 
> notifications tied to an Invite dialog and usage, but not 
> integral to its usage.  I.e., exactly what it meant before.  
> It would just have a new "Event"-type header, and the Invite 
> transaction would have carried negotiation for which events 
> could be used - neither of which require a new method name.
> 
> I guess one question is which Method is more appropriate, 
> given the dialog-usage draft.
[JRE] This has got me thinking again. A few days ago there seemed to be
some consensus that we were not talking about a new dialog usage within
an INVITE-initiated dialog, but merely an extension of the INVITE usage,
which terminates with the BYE transaction. Now this would be different
from NOTIFY requests arising from REFER implicit subscriptions - these
constitute a separate dialog usage, termination of which is determined
by the Subscription-State header field. IMO it gets very messy if we use
the same method for requests relating to the INVITE usage and to other
usages. So I am coming round to thinking NOTIFY would not be a good
choice.

John


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip

Reply via email to